Meena Devi vs State Of H.P. And Others

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

The Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur vide his order dated 14.12.2011, dispelled the challenge laid by respondent No.4 to the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Helper at Anganwari Centre Bhulan Matnoh, Post Office Sawarghat, Tehsil Shri Naina Devi Ji, District Bilaspur. However, the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division held that petitioner’s family income was above the limit prescribed in the policy prevalent at the relevant time and accordingly the appeal preferred by respondent No.4 was accepted vide order dated 17.12.2013. The petitioner was held ‘unfit’ for selection on account of her family income. The petitioner is presently continuing on the post of Anganwari Helper pursuant to the interim order passed in the instant petition on 27.12.2013.

Some relevant facts may be noticed.

2(i). Petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Anganwari Helper at Anganwari Centre Bhulan Matnoh, District Bilaspur during the year 2007. Respondent No.4 filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur against the selection and appointment of the petitioner alleging that her family income was much more than the limit prescribed in the policy prevailing at the relevant time. The Deputy Commissioner called for the report of the concerned Tehsildar with respect to petitioner’s income. After perusing the report and hearing the parties, the appeal was dismissed.

2(ii). Further appeal preferred by respondent No.4 was accepted by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division and the matter was remanded for afresh decision to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur. After remand, the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur accepted the appeal of respondent No.4 on 06.04.2010 and set aside the selection of the petitioner as Anganwari Helper. It was now petitioner’s turn to file first appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division. Petitioner’s first appeal was allowed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, vide order dated 21.04.2010 and the matter was once again remanded to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur for fresh decision.

2(iii). Aggrieved against the order dated 21.04.2010 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, respondent No.4 instituted Civil Writ Petition No.3498 of 2010 in this Court.

2(iv). In light of the decision rendered in CWP No.3498 of 2010, the matter was heard afresh by the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur. Report regarding income of petitioner’s family was called from the concerned Tehsildar. The Tehsildar vide his detailed report dated 23.11.2011, submitted that the annual income of petitioner’s family was Rs.11,400/- as on 14.05.2007. On the basis of this report, the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur, vide order dated 14.12.2011, dismissed the appeal instituted by respondent No.4 as the family income of the petitioner at Rs.11,400/- per annum as on 14.05.2007 was within the prescribed limit of Rs.12,000/- per annum.

2(v). Respondent No.4 assailed the order passed on 14.12.2011 by the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur before the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi. The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi vide his order dated 17.12.2013 presumed that in the circumstances of the case, petitioner’s family income had to be above the prescribed limit at the relevant time and she was not fit for selection on this score. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by respondent No.4 was allowed and petitioner’s selection and appointment was set aside. Aggrieved, against the order dated 17.12.2013 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the material on record.

My observations in the matter are as under:-

4(i). The petitioner at the time of her selection had appended an income certificate dated 14.05.2007 issued to her by the concerned Tehsildar. In this income certificate (Annexure P-3), her family income was reflected as Rs.10,000/- per annum. The income was within the limit of Rs.12,000/- per annum set out in the policy prevailing at the time.

4(ii). During the course of litigation, inquiry into the petitioner’s family income and the income certificate issued to her on 14.05.2007 was conducted by the concerned Tehsildar on the directions of the competent authorities. Detailed report was furnished by the concerned Tehsildar to the Deputy Commissioner, Bilaspur on 17.05.2008. As per this report, income of the petitioner from all sources was ascertained as Rs.11,400/- per annum, which, inter alia, included income from land holding. This income was again within the prescribed limit of Rs.12,000/- per annum indicated in the policy for selection and appointment of Anganwari Helpers.

4(iii). Pursuant to remand of the matter in view of the decision rendered in CWP No.3498 of 2010, the concerned Tehsildar conducted fresh inquiry on 23.11.2011 regarding income of the petitioner’s family from all sources. In the detailed inquiry report (Annexure P-6), the Tehsildar took note of the sale deeds executed in favour of petitioner’s husband on 19.01.2004 and 08.11.2005 as well as two LIC policies taken by petitioner’s husband in the year 2004. The factum of petitioner’s husband learning the repair and tyre puncture work under one Malkeet Singh was also noticed. The Tehsildar held that sale deeds were executed during the years 2004 and 2005, i.e. prior to the date of issuance of income certificate in the year 2007. It was also observed that LIC policies were taken by petitioner’s husband in the year 2004, i.e. much prior to the date of issuance of the income certificate on 14.05.2007. Keeping in view the relevant facts, he held out that income of the petitioner on the date of issuance of income certificate dated 14.05.2007 was Rs.11,400/- per annum as already reported by him in his previous report dated 17.05.2008. On the basis of the report of the Tehsildar, the Additional District Magistrate, Bilaspur on 14.12.2011, dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No.4 against the selection and appointment of the petitioner.

4(iv). It is not in dispute that the reports of the Tehsildar dated 17.05.2008 and 23.11.2011, holding the family income of the petitioner to be Rs.11,400/- per annum as on 14.05.2007, have attained finality. These have not been assailed by respondent No.4 any further. In terms of these reports, petitioner’s family income as on 14.05.2007, i.e. Rs.11,400/- per annum, falls within the prescribed limit of Rs.12,000/- per annum for determining the eligibility of the candidate for the post of Anganwari Helper.

4(v). The Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division in his impugned order dated 17.12.2013, has assumed that income of petitioner’s family had to be above the prescribed limit at the relevant time. This assumption has been drawn on account of the given reasons that:- “The respondent’s husband has taken different stands and the Tehsildar has also relied on these stands at different time. In report dated 16.11.2007 it is reported that he works as helper motor mechanic and also in report dated 17.5.2008 it is mentioned that Shri Kishori Lal works as helper and in report dated 28.11.2011 sent to the Additional District Magistrate it has been reported that in 2007 he was learning the work of repair and Tyre puncture in the shop of Shri Malkiat Singh as stated by Shri Kishori Lal, and in report dated 29.11.2013 also he was reported to be learning the work of Tyre puncture and mechanic as helper and gets only expenses incurred on food. Income from land is reported in this report as Rs.1200/- and in report dated 17.5.2008 as Rs.1400/-. The inquiry report dated 23.11.2011 sent on 28.11.2011 speaks of two sake deeds executed in favour of respondent’s husband. It appears that a person with meagre income of Rs.10000/- on 14.5.2007, though revised as Rs.11400/-, cannot think of purchasing land and having insurance policies.”

The purchase of land by Sh. Kishori Lal-the husband of the petitioner had already been noticed by the Tehsildar in his reports dated 17.05.2008 and 23.11.2011 in following manner:-

“2. Two sale deed was executed in the favour Sh. Kishori Lal husband of respondent on 19/1/2004 for amount Rs.79000/- land measuring 1-6 bighas and on 8/11/2005 for Rs.2000/- measuring 0-2 biswa. Sh. Kishori Lal in his statement stated that deed was executed by him but it was acquired jointly with other buyers and his share in first deed is 2/183 which is 0-2 biswa value Rs.6100/- and in 2nd deed his share is ½ which is 0-1 biswa and value Rs.1000/- only. Sh. Madan Lal husband of Sona Kumari is utter that said land is near the NH. Both deeds were executed before the date of issue of income certificate dated 14/5/2007 as certificate is valid for one year from the date of issue.”

It is, thus, apparent that share of petitioner’s husband in the land purchased valued Rs.6100/- in the sale deed executed on 19.01.2004 and Rs.1000/- in the sale deed executed on 08.11.2005. Both these sale deeds were executed much before the date of issuance of income certificate dated 14.05.2007, which was valid for one year from the date of issue. In respect of the premium paid by petitioner’s husband on the two LIC policies taken by him in the year 2004, following has been observed by the Tehsildar in his report dated 23.11.2011:-

“3. Sh. Kishori Lal admitted that two LIC policy taken by him on 28/3/2004 and 28/4/2004 for Rs.40000/- and 30000/- respectively but premium for 2nd policy paid by him Rs.1600/- p.a. and premium of other policy was paid by his uncle Sh. Amarnath working as Works Inspector in HPPWD for this he adduced the affidavit of Sh. Amarnath s/o Lal Ram who solemnly affirm and declare that he paid the premium of his nephew (Kishori Lal) for 5 years but now no amount paid by him and policy is closed. Sh. Madan Lal reiterated that both the policy is in operation. Both these policy was taken before date of issue certificate, he also produced the status report of both policies in which total bonus vest in policies in the name of Kishori Lal was (3960+6330) Rs.10290/- which is vest bonus on policies.”

Without considering the dates of execution of the sale deeds, the value thereof proportionate to the share of petitioner’s husband, the dates of purchase of LIC policies and the premium paid by petitioner’s husband thereupon vis-à-vis the date of issuance of income certificate and its validity period for next one year from the date of issue, the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, on the basis of mere presumptions and conjectures, had assumed that petitioner’s husband might be earning more than the limit prescribed in the policy. Presumption in such circumstances cannot become a yardstick to reach the conclusion that petitioner’s family income was above the prescribed limit of Rs.12,000/- per annum at the relevant time. In fact, the concerned Tehsildar has been consistent in his reports submitted on 12.05.2008 as well as on 23.11.2011 that petitioner’s family income was Rs.11,400/-per annum as on 14.05.2007. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner’s family income was more than Rs.11,400/- per annum at the relevant time or that petitioner’s family income exceeded the prescribed limit at the relevant time. The surmises drawn by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi with regard to petitioner’s family income as on 14.05.2007 are not borne out from the record.

For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the appointment of the petitioner as Anganwari Helper, who is continuously serving as such ever since 2007. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 17.12.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Mandi Division in Case No.02/2012, is quashed and set aside.

The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.